Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Supremes To Decide If Domains Are Property

Posted by timothy on from the sex-does-not-always-sell dept.

Richard W.M. Jones writes "Are domain names property like plots of land? The California Supreme Court has been asked to rule in the case of sex.com which was transferred using a forged letter to Network Solutions. Wired news also has the story."

4 of 150 comments (clear)

  1. Why Network Solutions is a defendant by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was puzzled at first at why Network Solutions was a defendant...

    IANAL, but it looks like the claim against Network Solutions is that they changed the ownership after recieving a letter from a random third party saying essentially "He sold it to me, give it so me". The letter should have been ignored. Only the OWNER of the domain can tell Network Solutions to transfer the ownership.

    The judge commented in a footnote:
    It's a bit as if Judge Reinhardt sent a letter to the DMV saying, "Judge Kozinski wants you to transfer title to his Lamborghini to me. He'd write to you himself, but he's out of stamps."

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  2. Sex.com stolen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Doesn't that count as rape?

  3. Re:not property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Not true. Microsoft Press has been around for years!

  4. Joke-ready Name by limekiller4 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is an extremely interesting case because afaik, domain names are currently held to be much like phone numbers -- you don't own one, you more or less rent it.

    But while reading the pdf, I noticed that the name of the guy who is the plaintif in this sex.com lawsuit is "Gary Kremen."

    Oh, the jokes...

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller